Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm a huge fan of the constitution and think due process is critical to maintaining a semi- civilized society. And keep in mind that I'm a pretty left leaning guy. However, if someone opts to break into my home and put my kids in danger then they have forfeited their right to due process the second the enter my home. And if they hurt my kids or the Akitas (or as I call them, my distant early warning system) then they're going to find out the hard way how accurate I am with a rifle and they'll wish the first one was a kill shot.

a reply to: dashen
But the criminals did get the fast trial they deserve, and shooting the criminal also saved the other honest citizens enormous amounts of money. If you want to commit a crime that would make some else shoot you - you most likely deserve it and should get shot for your endangering another persons life and making them kill you - if they are a good shot. Insanity at it's best. This new proposed law must be the work of you know who - it is aimed to protect those that commit the biggest percentage of crimes in America - yep - you know who I mean.

a reply to: xuenchen

A few years ago in Australia my two brothers killed two guys who had guns when they broke into the family house were women and children were sleeping. It was attempted payback for the belting of a brother of one of the deceased. The result, released by the police after overnight interrogation with no charges laid. However, this is never spoken about but i'm sure both my brothers will live with this terrible memory until they die.

a reply to: xuenchen

You do realize that there's an active and alarming racist agenda behind this, no?

Made my account to call this so-called expert a moron. So, let us just sit back and get absolutely beaten to death, thus losing our right to a fair trial.

What about the stand your ground and the castle doctrine?

Personally someone who breaks into my house will be met with teeth and a couple of katana.

Can' t spoil the other surprises I have waiting by blabbing about it here.

If Violent criminals want it that way i have a friend with a backhoe. why then call the cops when you can plant them yourself and save the tax payer money.

If you look at the missing person posters where you live there is a very good chance that the males between 16 and 35 that are missing and have long criminal records are ones that stole from someone and got caught in the act and will never be seen again.


With the cops charging homeowners for shooting Violent criminals in more and more states its becoming safer to just roll them up in plastic and give them a free deep burial or fitting them with cement overshoes and dropping them in a deep lake.

a reply to: xuenchen

The guy is an idiot, clearly. No one threatening the life of another gets to complain if they are killed as a result. because the life of the person, or people, they are threatening trumps their fair trial right.

a reply to: xuenchen

Some people are professional water muddyers and I'm sure they have an agenda, just not sure what it is.

One thing I'm certain of is that these sorts of ideas are designed to confuse, to discourage people, to encourage them to loose interest and leave it all to someone else.

E.g; don't you worry about the affairs of state, you leave that to us, go back to your toys.

a reply to: ANNED

Very true.People living in more rural areas will have even easier benefit of this disposal method.If preposterous laws make outlaws out of innocent decent people defending their own lives-then innocent decent people will have to start using some mafia methods to keep from being prosecuted as if They are the criminals.

Shooting a violent criminal is giving them a fair trial.

I shot a man & killed him in an attempted home invasion......fastest 40 seconds of my life. Was not charged, was not arrested, wasn't really even questioned...evidence spoke volumes. To say that an assailant who is killed by one defending themselves is illegal is just freaking stupid. Stupid people in positions of power is the problem with our damn country. How does a dead man argue his/her case? The assailant who entered my home gave me the RIGHT to shot him when he came in un-invited. In my state I don't even have to announce I'm getting ready to blow you back out the door before I blow you back out the door. He tried & convicted himself when he decided to enter my home armed and dangerous. I would do it all again the exact same way if it happened again. My life & the life of my family comes first...always has always will.

a reply to: xuenchen

I believe it should be considered a crime for a scholar to speak from his anus as this forces the anus to regurgitate something far worse smelling than it does so normally.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is just sad... really really sad. Civil rights never take precedence over our natural inalienable right to life. Period. I can't help but think he's just trying to further muddy the waters on what our rights really are -- natural rights, granted by Nature's God, and inalienable -- as opposed to those civil rights granted to protect our natural rights.

No one has the right to kill anyone for any reason. If we are forced to protect our own life (or anyone's life), and it results in the death of another, then it is deemed "justified." Not because we have the right to kill, but because we have the right to defend.

Unfortunately, and I believe in large part because of the current mindset among so many that cops have a "right" to kill anyone and everyone if they believe their lives might" be in danger, that ultimate respect and sanctity for life has been all but destroyed... and we will ALL continue to suffer the consequences.

There went our American exceptionalism.

Just aim for the kneecap. Problem solved.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

"real life criminals"?


As opposed to...?

a reply to: xuenchen

why do you need to kill someone to defend yourself anyway. If you have a gun i assume you practice shooting tin cans etc.

i would assume neutralising the criminal is a much easier and better option- 1 shot to each leg, or shoulder or

when defending yourself you should use " sufficient amount of force to defend yourself" killing is probably not under the sufficient amount of force.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

Obviously you don't shoot. You are taught to aim center of mass and to keep firing until your attacker goes down.

a reply to: xuenchen

No it's not at all. The Huffington Post is reporting that someone believes that.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: xuenchen

why do you need to kill someone to defend yourself anyway. If you have a gun i assume you practice shooting tin cans etc.

i would assume neutralising the criminal is a much easier and better option- 1 shot to each leg, or shoulder or

when defending yourself you should use " sufficient amount of force to defend yourself" killing is probably not under the sufficient amount of force.

Tin cans and targets don't move when they come under fire. On top of thst you have to factor in adrenaline. When I was in the Army, the first time. I came under fire my hands were shaking and I could taste the adrenaline in my mouth. You always aim for the biggest target to neutralize your threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. This means you aim for center mass. It's a larger target and more stationary than flailing limbs. On top of that, a wounded assailant is still capable of returning fire and still poses a lethal threat.